ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-consensus-wg]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] FW: Discussion paper

  • To: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] FW: Discussion paper
  • From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 19:11:23 +0200


Hi,

Interesting paper. Though I think it might be premature to discuss solution options before we have all agreed on the problem.

One aspect i don't understand is how to get around the 'picket fence imperative' where changing someone's material contractual conditions can be done without fair representation.

Another thing that i do not agree with is the denigration of the value of nomcom appointees to merely ballast. While that is an important consideration, especially as long as a picket fence imperative remains, i think they (ok, we) also serve the purpose of bringing in outside views and of making the policy group something other then just an insiders body. I know that on the board, the existence of nomcom appointees serves as some sort of argument against anti-trust accusations. I would think the same would apply to a policy council.

a.

On 1 Jul 2008, at 11:34, Glen de Saint Géry wrote:


From: Philip Sheppard [mailto:philip.sheppard@xxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 11:14 AM
To: 'gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx'
Subject: Discussion paper
As discussed briefly on Council it may be helpful to list what seems to have arisen as the concerns that constituencies have with regard to change in GNSO structure. It would be helpful to validate this list with the group in order to work at solutions that address the concerns. Some options are also mentioned that may be worth discussing.
Please see the attached paper.


Philip

<Options paper consensus wg.doc>





<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy